The Pentagon’s budget request for fiscal year 2003, for the most part,
has been well received on Capitol Hill. Nevertheless, several lawmakers have
voiced discontent about low levels of funding for shipbuilding and for military
construction, and have cautioned that the administration’s request for
a $10 billion war reserve may not be an acceptable option.
The Bush administration requested $379 billion for national defense, a $38
billion increase from last year. That includes $68 billion for procurement of
new weapons. The 2003 budget is about 3.5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic
product.
Almost 25 percent of the budget—about $94 billion—is slated for
military pay raises. Increases also were made for military housing allowances
and health care to the tune of $22 billion.
The budget includes $27 billion in new funds for anti-terrorism efforts, said
Larry Lanzillotta, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense in the office
of the comptroller. The money will be used, he said, to “root out terrorists,
terminate their sponsorship by state and non-state entities, and reduce the
threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.”
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the defense subcommittee at House Appropriations,
said he generally was pleased that the defense budget boosts intelligence accounts
by 25 percent. “Intelligence is what set us apart in Afghanistan. …
In this rapidly shrinking, very dangerous world, one of the biggest needs is
to develop human intelligence, because that impacts our understanding of the
world,” he said.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., the ranking member of the defense appropriations
subcommittee said: “One good thing about the budget this year is that
we should see continued growth in companies doing defense work in general, and
especially in the programs that play a critical role in homeland security. …
I feel confident we’ll see more jobs growth with the new budget.”
A $10 billion request for a war-reserve fund, meanwhile, has irked some lawmakers,
who don’t like to appropriate money that has not been specifically earmarked
for particular programs. A congressional staffer said that Sen. Kent Conrad
(D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, is “not likely to put [the
war reserve] in the budget without strings attached,” said the staffer.
There will be “some members who will not want it as a reserve, but just
added to defense,” he said.
Several key lawmakers are unhappy about the shipbuilding account, which funds
five new ships in fiscal 2003. According to Lanzillotta, “the Navy made
its own decision not to build more ships,” in order to free up dollars
for other priorities. In previous years, Navy leaders had stated that the service
should build eight to 10 ships a year to sustain a 300-ship Navy in the long
run.
“The shipbuilding issue is, for at least some members [of Congress],
a proxy for pointing out that overall procurement is too low,” said a
Senate staffer.
The ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
John Warner (R-Va.), wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Gordon England, questioning
the Navy’s spending plan. Warner called for increased shipbuilding budgets,
given the Navy’s contributions to the conflict in Afghanistan. During
Operation Enduring Freedom, Warner wrote, “[We have seen] Navy ships being
used as platforms for launching air strikes, helicopter operations and joint
special operations forces.” This underscores “the importance of
ships that can respond quickly to the operational commanders requirements, and
conduct continuous joint combat operations,” Warner added.
A senior-level congressional official, when asked about the Navy’s choices
said, “Even if we were to increase the shipbuilding account, what could
we do? The most they could give would be $1.5 billion and you could get a maximum
of one new ship, so you would get six instead of five. We’re still four
ships below the build rate,” he said.
So far, the Navy has not wavered, and there are no indications that it will
change its shipbuilding budget.
Some congressional staffers also expressed concern that this budget falls short
when it comes to military “transformation,” a Pentagon buzzword
used to describe the process of modernizing the military for the 21st century.
In this budget, wondered a staff member of the House Armed Services Committee,
“Where’s the transformation? … Bush promised to ‘leap
ahead’ and ‘skip a generation’ of weapons platforms, but his
2003 budget still funds the Army Crusader, a Cold War-spawned, heavy howitzer,
and provides less money in the science and technology accounts than was spent
in fiscal 2002,” he groused. “If you mean to transform the military,
the S&T accounts are where you do it.” Pentagon officials, however,
insisted that they have requested the same amount for S&T in 2003 –
$9.9 billion – that Congress provided last year.
Another staffer also questioned the Pentagon’s missile defense budget
proposal, which is likely to trigger “a fight about oversight and accountability.”
The staffer said the issue is likely to be “hotter in Senate than in the
House,” because Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
has many reservations about the current missile defense program.
A House staffer pointed to military construction as a likely source of contention,
because the administration reduced that account by $1.5 billion. There is “concern
that cuts in military construction will hurt military base quality of life,”
and some members are questioning “the rationale for the current military
construction list,” the staffer said. At least four members of the House
complained during a hearing with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, most
notably Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). “The Secretary of Defense claimed that
family housing was the priority in military construction,” said Saxton,
but he added that he is disappointed that Rumsfeld wants to postpone some investments
until after the next round of Base Realignments and Closures.